Category: philosophy

This is a followup to Part 1 in my series exploring flaws in the reasoning behind current widely-held social ideals. Put your thinking cap on and take this opportunity to consider what’s written here. If you prefer to abdicate your responsibility for critical thought, and you’ve come just to loudly expound on the dearly-held ideas that were given to you by others, please take advantage of either the “back” or “close tab” button on your browser. Otherwise, disagreement and reasoned debate are welcome. Enjoy.

This is part 1 in my series exploring flaws in the reasoning behind current widely-held social ideals. Part 1b, the followup to this post, is here. Put your thinking cap on and take this opportunity to consider what’s written here. If you prefer to abdicate your responsibility for critical thought, and you’ve come just to loudly expound on the dearly-held ideas that were given to you by others, please take advantage of either the “back” or “close tab” button on your browser. Otherwise, disagreement and reasoned debate are welcome. Enjoy.

This morning I was playing Trivia Crack because my wife likes me to play with her even though my win rate against her is almost two out of three, and there was a question about nuclear weapons. Specifically, it asked where the first use of nuclear weapons against civilians was, and because I didn’t take the time to read it thoroughly, I got it wrong and put the United States (the country who used the nukes). But after that I thought about that event and felt an overwhelming sense of sadness and nationalistic shame.

To continue the thread started with my earlier post on the ideal of equality, it seems extremely strange to me when people oppose that ideal. It just doesn’t make any sense given my worldview, though I suppose I can understand how it happens. It’s the same as the way that often people like the idea of competition, imagining how great it would be to be the best, when statistically they will almost certainly fall short.

Well, to begin with, we have to define “we.” Because if it’s one of the more obvious definitions, including everything about us, then we’re obviously not equal. We’re all different, and constantly changing. Of course we are. How could anyone believe we’re all equal? Well, without specifically discarding things from our definition of what we are in order to find something that can be considered “equal,” what are we, really? What is the core of each of us? What are we that doesn’t change?